NJ Gov Christie reneges on law he signed for more pension funding. Courts say it's ok

[Jhhnn]

If the unions didn't lobby the shit out of the state to get their "promises" (aka, buying votes) then they wouldn't get them, would they?

Taxpayers simply cannot afford what was promised, period. Get in line with the rest of us and be at risk for having your 401k go down in value.

Taxpayers can't afford or won't afford? I figure it's obviously the latter. With christie's leadership, they probably won't even come part way. it was a set up deal starting 20 years ago when reduced pension contributions were used to cover the folly of tax cuts. Funds put in 20 years ago would have quadrupled in size by now at 7% rate of return. It's not hard to figure that wealthy Jerseyites did exactly that with their tax cuts.

It doesn't matter that Unions lobbied the state. They were obviously dealing in good faith, unlike the liars cheats & thieves on the other side of it. They show up & do their jobs.

401K's? Most working Americans lack the financial savvy to make them into more than a hidden fee based revenue stream for Wall St & a riskier plan than stuffing money into their mattresses.

 

[Mai72]

My understanding is that per the state constitution, such a spending increase is only legal if passed via voter referendum.

Christie has stated to the unions time and time again that it should be put on the ballot, but every time the teacher's union has declined. I wonder why? Could it be that taxpayers have had enoung of the high taxes. The unions know that the public does not like them.

The unions in NJ have a long road ahead. They need to concede defeat and restructure the pension system before it's too late.

 

[Jhhnn]

Christie has stated to the unions time and time again that it should be put on the ballot, but every time the teacher's union has declined. I wonder why? Could it be that taxpayers have had enoung of the high taxes. The unions know that the public does not like them.

The unions in NJ have a long road ahead. They need to concede defeat and restructure the pension system before it's too late.

So why isn't it on the ballot? It's not like the unions can actually prevent that.

 

[JEDI]

Christie has stated to the unions time and time again that it should be put on the ballot, but every time the teacher's union has declined. I wonder why? Could it be that taxpayers have had enoung of the high taxes. The unions know that the public does not like them.

The unions in NJ have a long road ahead. They need to concede defeat and restructure the pension system before it's too late.

how can it be too late?

unlike Detroit, a state cant declare bankruptcy.
once way or another, the pensioners will get paid their $80B owed to them

 

[nageov3t]

Taxpayers can't afford or won't afford? I figure it's obviously the latter.

with NJ's current tax rates, you're talking about trying to wrench blood from a stone.

 

[rudeguy]

So why isn't it on the ballot? It's not like the unions can actually prevent that.

Are there legal implications if it goes on the ballot and is defeated?

Say they put a $2B/year initiative on the ballot and it gets voted down. Can the governor then legally put any money into the pensions if the voters already said no?

I have no idea. I'm just asking.

 

[nageov3t]

So why isn't it on the ballot? It's not like the unions can actually prevent that.

to get an initiative on the ballot, the Democrat-controlled State Senate would have to pass a measure. I don't think the process really involves the Governor at all.

(it's not like CA, for example, where any Joe Voter can collect signatures and petition to get something on the ballot)

 

[Jhhnn]

Are there legal implications if it goes on the ballot and is defeated?

Say they put a $2B/year initiative on the ballot and it gets voted down. Can the governor then legally put any money into the pensions if the voters already said no?

I have no idea. I'm just asking.

It's just Christie trying to devalue & discredit the unions. If he actually wanted something on the ballot, he'd have sent a proposal to the legislature.

See how that works?

 

[rudeguy]

It's just Christie trying to devalue & discredit the unions. If he actually wanted something on the ballot, he'd have sent a proposal to the legislature.

See how that works?

Holy shit I give up trying to be rational with you.

 

[cabri]

Why is it the worker's fault for demanding what they were promised? They held up their end of the bargain by working for the state. The state's end was to pay salary and pension. If the state couldn't afford it, they should have stopped offering such pensions in the first place. As it stands now, the state is effectively stealing from the workers by reneging on pensions.

The state at the time agreements were made, supposedly, thought that the pensions could be affordable based on investments and tax revenues.

As time goes on; those assumptions failed. Pensions are a promise for the future and the future changed.

The employer (public) apparently has the ability to change the rules of the game.

For those that actually retired on the pension the situation seems to be different than those that are still working.

The unions had hitched themselves to a political gravy train and rode/abused it for all they could. Now there is no more fuel; they knew in advance
that such could happen.

To be fair, the state probably didn't "offer" it. The public union most likely demanded something, anyone involved that had a few neurons to rub together knew wasn't feasible long term, and both sides eventually agreed because the people involved knew they wouldn't be around when the train came off the tracks.

This ^^

 

[Jhhnn]

Holy shit I give up trying to be rational with you.

Please. The legal implications are immaterial if Christie never makes a concrete proposal.

If such a thing is not legal, it's Christie running a misdirection play.

If it is legal, he's still running a misdirection play because he has not taken any steps to make it happen.

A big part of New Jersey's problem is that they're big donors to red state welfare queens, have been for a very long time-

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

 

[Jhhnn]

The state at the time agreements were made, supposedly, thought that the pensions could be affordable based on investments and tax revenues.

Tax cuts change that, don't they?

As time goes on; those assumptions failed. Pensions are a promise for the future and the future changed.

Yes, Repub politics changed the future. They just didn't mention the inevitable consequences of their policy at the time. They depend on such omissions to implement their trickle down flimflam.

The employer (public) apparently has the ability to change the rules of the game.

For those that actually retired on the pension the situation seems to be different than those that are still working.

The unions had hitched themselves to a political gravy train and rode/abused it for all they could. Now there is no more fuel; they knew in advance
that such could happen.


This ^^

So, uhh, New Jersey politicians can change it any time they want, dictate terms, but it's the Unions' fault anyway?

Nice flip flop into demonization. I'll give you that.

The truth of the matter is that it's just another example of successful looting of the public treasury through top down class warfare. They already won having received tax breaks for 20 years. They guys who only got promises, public employees, get to find out how dumb they & New Jersey voters were when they believed the bastards in the first place.

 

[Brainonska511]

The state at the time agreements were made, supposedly, thought that the pensions could be affordable based on investments and tax revenues.

As time goes on; those assumptions failed. Pensions are a promise for the future and the future changed.

The employer (public) apparently has the ability to change the rules of the game.

For those that actually retired on the pension the situation seems to be different than those that are still working.

The unions had hitched themselves to a political gravy train and rode/abused it for all they could. Now there is no more fuel; they knew in advance
that such could happen.


This ^^

Would you say the same thing if you had a defined benefits plan in the early 90s from a private corporation which then switched you over to a crappier, cash-balance plan (the kind that screws over older workers)? After all, the employer can change things unilaterally, even after they've collected on the labor of the workers over all those years.

If the public wanted to change things unilaterally, the leaders in charge - aka the legislature and executive, should have been making these changes. Pension amounts that need to be paid out in the future aren't a secret. They could have been instituting changes for years for new hires. Sure, it may have been "unpopular", but public unions haven't exactly been very popular for a long time. Perhaps political leaders should grow a pair and realize that sometimes, doing what's right isn't doing what's popular.

 

[fskimospy]

If the unions didn't lobby the shit out of the state to get their "promises" (aka, buying votes) then they wouldn't get them, would they?

That's true for literally every interest group ever. In fact, that's basically the structure of democracy. People vote for who they think will help them the most.

Taxpayers simply cannot afford what was promised, period. Get in line with the rest of us and be at risk for having your 401k go down in value.

Research (generally) shows that pension returns outperform 401(k) returns due to various institutional advantages, making them inherently more 'affordable'. The state of course needs to account for the additional risk it takes on by erring on the side of caution for investment returns. The major liability of pensions that I see is that political leadership can't always be trusted to be good stewards of their pension funds and do that. It's all too easy to assume higher returns in the future in order to save money in the present. This might be a reason in and of itself to switch to 401(k) if we determine that political leadership simply isn't trustworthy enough to act responsibly.

There are also other issues of worker mobility, the ability to borrow against 401(k) balances if they want to, etc.

 

[rudeguy]

That's true for literally every interest group ever. In fact, that's basically the structure of democracy. People vote for who they think will help them the most.



Research (generally) shows that pension returns outperform 401(k) returns due to various institutional advantages, making them inherently more 'affordable'. The state of course needs to account for the additional risk it takes on by erring on the side of caution for investment returns. The major liability of pensions that I see is that political leadership can't always be trusted to be good stewards of their pension funds and do that. It's all too easy to assume higher returns in the future in order to save money in the present. This might be a reason in and of itself to switch to 401(k) if we determine that political leadership simply isn't trustworthy enough to act responsibly.

There are also other issues of worker mobility, the ability to borrow against 401(k) balances if they want to, etc.

No. That is not true for everyone. Its true for democrats.

 

[fskimospy]

No. That is not true for everyone. Its true for democrats.

If you think people are voting for reasons other than self interest you are delusional.

A good book on this subject is called "The Logic of Political Survival", btw.

(out of morbid curiosity though, feel free to explain why you think Republicans vote for people)

 

[rudeguy]

If you think people are voting for reasons other than self interest you are delusional.

A good book on this subject is called "The Logic of Political Survival", btw.

(out of morbid curiosity though, feel free to explain why you think Republicans vote for people)

Someone doesn't agree with your views, so that person must be insane. And you wonder why we refuse to try to negotiate with you.

You vote for the best person to do the job. Not the person who will give you the most stuff. Unlike yours, my vote is not for sale.

 

[dank69]

Someone doesn't agree with your views, so that person must be insane. And you wonder why we refuse to try to negotiate with you.

You vote for the best person to do the job. Not the person who will give you the most stuff. Unlike yours, my vote is not for sale.

Doing the best job qualifies as something that is best for you.

 

[fskimospy]

Someone doesn't agree with your views, so that person must be insane. And you wonder why we refuse to try to negotiate with you.

You vote for the best person to do the job. Not the person who will give you the most stuff. Unlike yours, my vote is not for sale.

I am simply telling you that empirical research states otherwise. If you want to deny research, that's fine. That's what you do with all contrary information from what I've seen.

Regardless, how do you define the 'best person for the job'?

 

[Bowfinger]

No. That is not true for everyone. Its true for democrats.

Get real. One of the biggest drivers of the GOP rank and file is the perpetual promise of tax cuts. It's the biggest self-interest issue there is. It works year after year, in spite of the GOP's actual record of supporting the elite few at the expense of the rank and file's best interests.

 

[fskimospy]

Get real. One of the biggest drivers of the GOP rank and file is the perpetual promise of tax cuts. It's the biggest self-interest issue there is. It works year after year, in spite of the GOP's actual record of supporting the elite few at the expense of the rank and file's best interests.

Don't you get it? His position is that when Republicans vote for policies they want they are doing it because they are the best policies. When Democrats vote for policies they want it's because they are evil selfish Democrats.

It's funny to watch him complain about P&N when he is the embodiment of everything he whines about. (and adds on a victim complex)

 

[rudeguy]

Don't you get it? His position is that when Republicans vote for policies they want they are doing it because they are the best policies. When Democrats vote for policies they want it's because they are evil selfish Democrats.

It's funny to watch him complain about P&N when he is the embodiment of everything he whines about. (and adds on a victim complex)

Principles over policy.

Democrats like you cannot say that, since you have no principles to speak of.

 

[DrPizza]

This is why the 401k was invented, so you know and can plan out your personal retirement benefits and hopefully not worry about the whims of future governors.

You've forgotten - wasn't it just a few weeks ago that a few big name financial institutions were in trouble with manipulating the markets? Put your money into a 401k and there are bankers salivating at the prospect of getting as much of that money as they can. Granted, it usually goes up in value, but you very well may be missing out on a lot of the potential value as markets are manipulated so that other people can get more money out.

No. That is not true for everyone. Its true for democrats.

So, what you're saying is that voters vote Democrat because they believe Democrats will help them. But people vote for Republicans because they actually realize that the Republicans are screwing them over? I think you're giving too much credit to too many of the Republican voters, particularly in the South.

 

[fskimospy]

Principles over policy.

Democrats like you cannot say that, since you have no principles to speak of.

Republicans hold their principles because they believe they are what yields the best result for them in the end. They aren't voting for candidates that will repeal the ACA under the logic of "this makes America as a whole better off but it's against my principles so I'll vote against it", they vote for candidates that will repeal the ACA because they think it's bad for them and for the country. You are incredibly naive if you think otherwise.

Every statement you're saying here just reinforces my previous point that you're simply a culture warrior. This demonizing of political opponents and the argument that Republicans don't vote out of self interest but out of high minded principles is a juvenile one. It's hard for me to imagine you actually think something that dumb.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you think people are voting for reasons other than self interest you are delusional.

A good book on this subject is called "The Logic of Political Survival", btw.

(out of morbid curiosity though, feel free to explain why you think Republicans vote for people)

The term you want is "perceived self interest". As we've seen many times, such perceptions are easily manipulated. Righties in particular have trouble thinking things through to the end.

If that weren't true, NJ wouldn't have this problem in the first place. As a nation, we've been flimflammed by trickle down Reaganomics promises playing on our own greed for decades. It's just like NJ pensions. The big guys get cash up front & all along the way, the little guys get promises to be broken down the road.

What happens to the money that the guys at the top get out of the deal? They invest it in companies offshoring & automating as fast as possible because those companies offer the greatest returns. In making jobs scarce, they've held down wages at the same time, but we all get a bigger line of credit, of course. They're cannibalizing our economy.

Can't figure it out? You're not supposed to, silly man. You're supposed to think just the way that you do. The victory of the ownership class over the rest of America is the result of brilliant propaganda applied in a ruthless & relentless manner. Middle class righties bought it all along & apparently lack what it takes to man-up & admit they've been screwed by the people they trusted the most.